The document analyzes the use of interactive whiteboards (IWBs) in state secondary English as a foreign language (EFL) classes, highlighting the trends towards increased integration and the challenges faced due to traditional teaching methods. It indicates a preference for lower levels of interactivity, such as drilling, especially in primary classrooms, and discusses the need for teacher training to effectively utilize IWBs for communicative language teaching. The findings suggest a limited transformation in pedagogical practices despite the adoption of IWBs, calling for further classroom research and stronger emphasis on teacher education.

1. Analysing target language
interaction in IWB-mediated
activities: from drills to tasks in
state secondary EFL classes
Shona Whyte (University of Nice)
Euline Cutrim Schmid (University of
Education Schwäbisch Gmünd)
Gary Beauchamp (Cardiff Metropolitan
University)
EuroCALL 2014 Groningen, Netherlands 22 August 2014

2. Background

3. One in eight classrooms (34 million teaching
spaces) across the world now have an IWB and by
2015, one in five will have one
–Hennessy & London, 2013
http://wp.me/p28EmH-46

4. IWB penetration by country
http://wp.me/p28EmH-46

5. Interactivity with the IWB
synergistic
advanced
initiate
apprentice
beginner
dialogic
dialectic
authoritative
none
interactivity in teacher
use of IWB
–Beauchamp, 2004
Kennewell & Beauchamp, 2010
http://wp.me/p28EmH-46

6. Interactivity in IWB-mediated teaching
enhanced
interactivity conceptual
interactive physical
supported
didactic technical
interactivity of
teaching
–Jewitt et al., 2007
Glover et al., 2007
http://wp.me/p28EmH-46

7. Gratuitous interactivity
pupils respond to opportunities for interaction
which have been designed into the software with
no clear purpose - there is no learning gain and
the interactions are empty and passive rather than
active
– Plowman, 1996

8. Reactive versus proactive learning
A reactive model of interactivity is one which has
been designed to support learning through drill
and practice /reaction and response mode.
Conversely, proactive learning is thought to take
place through the user being involved actively in
the construction of the knowledge
– Aldrich et al., 1998

9. Interaction hypothesis
negotiation of meaning, and especially
negotiation work that triggers interactional
adjustments by the NS or more competent
interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it
connects input, internal learner capacities,
particularly selective attention, and output in
productive ways.
Long, 1996

10. Communicative competence and task-based
language teaching
Prioritisation of meaningful communication and interaction
over drilling and memorisation of grammar and vocabulary:
● negotiation of meaning and practice in communication
(Savignon, 2007)
● use language with an emphasis on meaning to
achieve an objective (Bygate et al., 2001)
● three of four dimensions of communicative
competence (sociolinguistic, discourse, strategic)
presuppose interaction (Blyth, 2001)

11. Research on the IWB for language teaching
!
● increase in motivation, multimodality, and pace (Cutrim
Schmid, 2008, 2010; Cutrim Schmid & Whyte, 2012)
● compatible with any teaching style, including teacher-controlled
whole-class activities (Gray et al., 2007;
Gray, 2010)
● long learning curve involving both technical and
pedagogical development for teachers (Cutrim
Schmid & Whyte, 2012; Whyte et al., 2013)

12. Challenges for language teaching
!
● identifying and exploiting key affordances of novel
technologies for one’s own teaching context (Whyte, 2011)
● adopting strongly CLT and TBLT methods in traditional
state school settings, where rote learning of vocabulary
and grammar rules remain common (Cutrim Schmid &
Whyte, 2012; Whyte, 2011)
● the specificity of the IWB as a complex tool which can be
relatively easily integrated into existing practice but requires
teacher support in context and over time if it is to mediate
pedagogical innovation (Hennessy & London, 2013)

13. iTILT project

14. Design of IWB
training
!
!
Implementation of
IWB training
!
!
Use of IWB in
classroom
!
1st visit
2nd visit
!
Selection of video
examples
!
Creation of Open
Educational
Resources
● video recording
of IWB-mediated
language
teaching
● learner focus
group interview
● video-stimulated
teacher
interview
http://itilt.eu
!
● 267 videos from
● 81 lessons by
● 44 teachers of
● 6 languages in
● 7 countries at
● 4 educational
levels
–Whyte et al., 2013

15. IWB use by 44 iTILT teachers
1. IWB access
2. IWB functionalities
3. language competences
–Whyte, Beauchamp &
Alexander, 2014

16. Overall IWB use by iTILT teachers
IWB access IWB tools Language competences
clear preference
for learner use of IWB
balance between
embedding and activity
balanced use of IWB for skills
and subskills
limited range of tools
and features used
much more speaking +
listening than reading +
writing
individual learner at IWB;
group work in German
classes
focus on basic features:
images, pen + drag/
drop; audio for French
teachers
strong focus on vocabulary,
also pronunciation and
more grammar focus among
German teachers
Limited range of basic features
used to teach oral skills and vocabulary
with individual learners at the IWB

17. Present study
• participants
• data

18. Participants: EFL teachers
France Germany Total
primary 4 4
lower secondary 2 1 3
upper secondary 2 2 4
Total 8 3 11

19. Teacher M/F Age Teaching Learners IWB Level
AF F 40+ 20+ 9-10 2-3 Primary
BF F 40+ 20+ 8-9 2-3 Primary
CF F 20+ 0 7-11 0-1 Primary
DF F 30+ 4 7-12 2-3 Primary
EF F 30+ 7 12-13 0-1 Lower Secondary
FF F 20+ 2 11-12 2-3 Lower Secondary
HF F 40+ 20+ 16-17 0-1 Upper Secondary
IF M 30+ 10+ 15 4-5 Upper Secondary
BG M 25 + 2 11-12 0-1 Lower Secondary
DG F 40 + 20 + 16-17 5 Upper Secondary
EG F 25 + 4 15-16 2 Upper Secondary

20. Video clips (54 activities)
France 33 Germany 21
Round 1 26 Round 2 28
Primary 15 Secondary 39

21. Analysis
• drill
• display
• simulation
• communication

22. Language Context Planning
(task as plan)
Control
(task as process)
!
Drill
!!!!
•!pre-planned
language
•!(choral) repetition
•!feedback on form
•!limited attempt
to contextualize
language
•!focus on
linguistic form
•!entirely pre-planned
by
teacher
•!teacher controls
access to board
and turn-taking
!
Display
!!!!!!
•!input/output goes
beyond minimum
target items
•!some open questions
•!limited attempt
to contextualize
language
•!no simulation of
real-world
activity
•!mainly pre-planned
by
teacher
•!some
unplanned
production
•!mainly teacher
control
•!practice of pre-selected
language
elements
!
Simulation
!!!
•!some focus on
meaning
•!some feedback on
content
•!interaction based on
communication
•!meaningful
context
•!role-play:
pretending to be
someone in a
real-life activity
•!some space
for learner
choice
•!teacher
expands on
activity
•!learner-oriented
activity
•!voluntary
participation and
choice in how to
participate
!
Communication
•!focus on meaning
•!feedback on content
•!genuine
communication
•!learner choice of
forms
•!authentic
context, real-life
activity
•!participants'
own opinions or
reactions
•!open activity
with space
for learner
choice
•!preparation
by learners
•!learner
controlled
activities
•!space for
spontaneous
interaction

23. Findings

24. Overview of interactivity types
DRILL DISPLAY SIMULATION COMMUNICATION
18 33% 22 41% 5 9% 9 17%

25. Development over time
DRILL DISPLAY SIMULATION COMMUNICATION
Round 1 7 27% 11 42% 4 15% 4 15%
Round 2 11 39% 11 39% 1 4% 5 18%

26. French and German teachers
DRILL DISPLAY SIMULATION COMMUNICATION
French
teachers
13 39% 15 45% 3 9% 2 6% 33
German
teachers
5 24% 7 33% 2 10% 7 33% 21
Total 18 33% 22 41% 5 9% 9 17% 54

27. Primary and secondary teachers
DRILL DISPLAY SIMULATION COMMUNICATION
Primary 11 73% 3 20% 1 7% 0 0%
Lower
secondary
3 15% 12 60% 1 5% 4 20%
Upper
secondary
4 21% 7 37% 3 16% 5 26%

28. Discussion

29. Summary of findings
" general preference for activities involving lower levels of
interactivity
" drilling mainly in primary classrooms; communication
restricted to secondary classrooms
" more drill and display activities by French teachers, more
variety in German classes
lower
levels of
interactivity
basic IWB tools
and features
involving
single learner at IWB
reactive
(gratuitous)
interactivity

30. Pedagogical orientation - French primary
“We repeat and repeat it. They will try to guess,
so we hear different words, different names of
animals. And finally, we repeat and repeat and
repeat, and they learn it. They remember it.”
–Teacher CF
primary, novice teacher & IWB user

31. Pedagogical orientation - French secondary
“ I think it makes it less painful. Because
all the info is just there, in front of them.
So the drilling is not as painful as it can
be sometimes […] and the drilling is
also part of language learning.”
– Teacher EF
lower secondary, experienced teacher, novice IWB user

32. Pedagogical orientation - French secondary
“ It's obviously a very big defeat for the classical
idea of learning by rote, learning pattern drills: ‘I
can sit here and concentrate on this and later on
that will be beneficial to me.’ But you know, we
have to live with the times”
– Teacher HF
upper secondary, experienced teacher, novice IWB user

33. Pedagogical orientation - German secondary
“First I realised that there is a problem that the
whiteboard is in the centre of the lesson and not
the students ... and so we decided this time to make
students talk and not use only the whiteboard as
the most important tool. So I think that’s very
important. Not to forget that the most important
aim of the lesson is to make the students talk
and not only use the whiteboard with the pen.”
– Teacher DG
upper secondary, experienced teacher, experienced IWB user

34. Pedagogical orientation - German secondary
“But I think they are too little active for me. So I
would change this with the laptop thing that I told
you. Yes, this I would do when they work in pair
work, or maybe individual work. And then you can
do that again together as a group [on the IWB].”
– Teacher EG
upper secondary, novice teacher and IWB user

35. Possible explanations
• early stages of IWB adoption not associated with
pedagogical transformation
• core beliefs about second language teaching and
learning lead to resistance to CLT and TBLT
• institutional influences:
• less CLT orientation, primary ELT training in France
• more TBLT in Germany

36. Conclusion

37. Implications
● no clear-cut positive effects on classroom interaction
associated with IWB use
● more classroom-based research in state-school
settings involving teachers in collaborative action
research
● stronger focus on teacher education in design and
implementation of communicative tasks

38. Further reading
● Cutrim Schmid, E., & Whyte, S. (Eds.) Teaching languages with
technology: communicative approaches to interactive whiteboard use.
A resource book for teacher development. Bloomsbury.
● Whyte, S., & Alexander, J. (2014). Implementing tasks with interactive
technologies in classroom CALL: towards a developmental framework.
Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 40 (1), 1-26. PDF
● Whyte, S. (to appear). Implementing and researching technological
innovation in language teaching: the case of interactive whiteboards
for EFL in French schools. Palgrave Macmillan.

39. References
http://wp.me/p28EmH-46